Al Gore wins Nobel

Parent Cafe
101

<p>I think the radical conservatives all denying global warming has gone the way of many of their doctrines (fiscal conservancy, family values, small government, states’ rights, compassion, well, you name it). </p>

<p>After it was clearly revealed that the science coming out of our federal government, as well as many other supposed think tanks and universities, was severely tainted by big oil money and political influence…well, their credibility is just shot.</p>

<p>So, while the rest of the world gets going on researching solutions, some Americans look like dinosaurs. Fortunately that is getting to be a small minority.</p>

102

<p>weenie,
You are clearly a product of the leftist blogs. Your post is inaccurate in so many ways. First, the issue is not the simplistic “denying global warming” that the left tries to dumb the discussion down to, it is determing how significant it has been, what are its causes (how much, if any is man made), what can be done (if anything) to mitigate it, what would it cost to do this and what are the repercussions if we don’t do anything. All of these issues are still open for science to evaluate, but you and Gore just want to shut everyone up and jump head first into a “solution” without knowing any of the above answers.</p>

<p>Secondly, despite your allegations of “big oil money and political influence” on the science, you have clearly fallen into the trap of jumping to a convenient conclusion that if a few people at some point in their careers had research funded by an oil company, then all of their subsequent work is not valid and anyone who happens to agree with them is also tainted. That is just not the case and you do science a great disservice by demonizing anyone that disagrees with you.</p>

<p>Finally, you paint this as an issue of just some neandrethal American scientists who are on the dole of big oil. Don’t look now, but many of the scientist who are taking alternative views are from all over the world. You would know that if you wanted to open your mind a little and read any of the links that I provided.</p>

103

<p>Did You check the publications or scientists? Or did you just Google? You do know how google algorithms work? Or are you just parroting the GOP line?</p>

<p>Did you read this man’s treatise? Or did you take for face value that he is a scientist and therefore an expert in climate?</p>

<p>I do not dispute your particular thinking, only the methodology.</p>

104

<p>Here are the publications of just one of the signees (Patrick Michaels) since 2000:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I’m sure that others on the list have comparable expertise in climate science, but it only takes one to refute the assertion from whomever wrote the Wikipedia slur.</p>

105

<p>Yeah, but he is just one guy. Assuming all others have 32 papers like him there are (60*32 = 1920 anti global warming papers. If you assume further that half of them were paid for by XOM, Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Union, there would be about 960 papers. On the other side there are thousands of scientists and if they have written on an average 10. The sheer quantity wins, and many of them have gone to places like North Pole, Green Land, Antartica etc. They have field experience and data. Most of the people on your list have office jobs (some of them are even consultants to Energy Industry). They are just theorizing.</p>

106

<p>

</p>

<p>I do not see that as a good argument though.</p>

<p>Why is it then, that with all the “thousands” ( and now, i will just assume as well, ) of scientists and their field experience and data to back him up, Al Gore refuses to debate his critics ? Doesn’t he lose credibiity by doing so? Would a powerful presidential candidate refuse to debate the others and still have people vote for him?</p>

107

<p>simba,</p>

<p>1)Science is not a democracy where the majority opinion is the correct opinion. </p>

<p>2)How do you suppose the others are funded. As it has already been pointed out, unless your research is in line with the IPCC, you have little chance of getting funding. That makes for a pretty self-fulfilling “science” don’t you think?</p>

<p>Note, I am not saying that the IPCC is wrong - just that it is anti-science to try to squelch/denigrate/demonize anyone with an opposing view. Science is filled with “predominant” views being over turned by subsequent studies. I would think that the heavy handed actions and words to close down alternative views should be sending out very loud alarm bells in people’s heads.</p>

108

<p>

</p>

<p>I absolutely agree with this – as soon as an issue becomes popularized and/or politicized, science goes out the door.</p>

109

<p>“Why is it then, that with all the “thousands” ( and now, i will just assume as well, ) of scientists and their field experience and data to back him up, Al Gore refuses to debate his critics ?”</p>

<p>Perhaps, he does not like to wrestle in mud.</p>

<p>Second, it is not his job. He is just a messenger. He just translates the scientific mumbo-jumbo in easy to understand language.</p>

<p>Third he thinks that anti-climate crowd has enough mouth pieces to express their views.</p>

<p>Fourth he thinks that it would be like playing orchestra music in front of cows.</p>

110

<p>^^^Come on Simba. I think you are trying to say that you really do not know why he would not debate. With his attitude, people are more likely to think that he really “knows” he could not win the debate. I doubt that someone who dragged the country into months of recounting and court appeals and rulings, would pass the opportunity to show us that he is really right about this, especially when his credibility is at stake.</p>

<p>You are not being serious with that statement, are you?</p>

111

<p>lol @ barrons - global warming and cancer in general are products of the Jews. It’s all a scam to make people invest in holistic medicine and environmentally friendly products. (I’m not anti-semitic, I’m a Jew).</p>

<p>I think Jimmy Carter and Yasser Arafat winning the Nobel peace prize just shows how truly meaningful and prestigious this award really is. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for cleaning up the Earth, etc. etc. What Al’s doing is great and all. But does he really deserve the Nobel Peace prize for narrating a couple documentaries? He’s not exactly the prime example of practicing what he preaches . . .</p>

112

<p>“You are not being serious with that statement, are you?”</p>

<p>actually, I am very serious.</p>

113

<p>Fundingfather:“Science is not a democracy where the majority opinion is the correct opinion.”</p>

<p>True.</p>

<p>But allow me to express my views with this little example. I live in gulf coast and every time there is a disturbance in the gulf, the weather stations start talking about projected paths of that disturbance. Most of the time they just have big yellow thing they call it cone of uncertainty. Once in a while they do show the projected paths from different models. There are always 3-4 models showing very similar path, and there always will be couple who are outliers. The center of the cone is defined by the most models (sheer quantity). What your 40+ or so scientists show are what I will call the outliers. </p>

<p>If you live were to live in the gulf cost, which hurricane path would you like to believe? Prediction from the majority of models or the lonely out lier?</p>

<p>The anti climate crowd has latched on to those outlying models and tried to build a case, just like the tobacco debate or the ozone debate.</p>

<p>By the way, when were you convinced that cigarettes causes cancer? when were you convinced that man made products caused ozone depletion? </p>

<p>I am frankly surprised by the conservative peoples stance on this issue. I thought they all liked to make money, and there is money to be made while doing something good. We are losing ground when other countries shop for ‘processes’ to build plants - they prefer European processes - bit more efficient. Not long ago, some of the largest corporations in US joined together in their efforts to curb green house gas emissions (including Rupert Murdoh) or reduce their carbon foot print. All the GE commercials in the last six months have environmental themes - eco-imagination. BP has even changed their slogan - Beyond Petroleum. Coal gasification was a dude in this country. China and India are the largest customers of that process.</p>

<p>When alumother says VCs are throwing money. She was not being silly. VCs know what they are doing. They know they can make money and save the planet.</p>

114

<p>MovieBuff: Don’t be silly.</p>

<p>Gore debating scientists would be like you debating validity of Green’s theorem or Navier Stokes Equation or arguing the finner points of continuum mechanics or J-integral.</p>

115

<p>“They know they can make money and save the planet.”</p>

<p>Riiiight. A VC knows only money and if the political pressure to mandate restrictions on CO2 were to dry up tomorrow, so would the money.</p>

116

<p>when were you convinced that cigarettes causes cancer? when were you convinced that man made products caused ozone depletion?</p>

<p>or that invasion of Iraq was a fiasco?</p>

<p>There are still few outliers who believe that earth is flat.</p>

117

<p>Global warming. Puts a realist spin on the childhood dream of becoming an astronaut.</p>

118

<p>Simba, I am not being silly. Al Gore is refusing to debate other critics, that like you said, are also “just messengers. They also translate the scientific mumbo-jumbo in easy to understand language” but have the opposing view. No one expects him to debate the experts. He is certainly just repeating the views that he happened to believe in.</p>

119

<p>That will not accomplish anything. That kind of debate would be nothing more than a ****ing match.</p>

<p>The right wingers spent hundreds of billions and hundreds of thousands lives with millions of refugees in the invasion of Iraq on much flimsier evidence.</p>

120

<p>Fundingfather: <em>sigh</em> It is commendable (I guess) that there a few conservatives left who have enough energy to still browbeat a few of their lost causes. Stay the course.</p>